BACKGROUND: Intrathecal drug delivery systems can be used to manage refractory or persistent chronic nonmalignant (noncancer) pain. We investigated the benefits, harms, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of these systems compared with current standards of care for adult patients with chronic pain owing to nonmalignant conditions. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the National Health Service's Economic Evaluation Database and Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from January 1994 to April 2014 for evidence of effectiveness, harms, and cost-effectiveness. We used existing systematic reviews that had employed reliable search and screen methods and also searched for studies published after the search date reported in the latest systematic review to identify studies. Two reviewers screened records and assessed study validity. RESULTS: We found comparative evidence of effectiveness and harms in one cohort study at high risk of bias (≥ 3-year follow-up, N = 130). Four economic evaluations of low to very low quality were also included. Compared with oral opioid analgesia alone or a program of analgesia plus rehabilitation, intrathecal drug delivery systems significantly reduced pain (27% additional improvement) and morphine consumption. Despite these reductions, intrathecal drug delivery systems were not superior in patient-reported well-being or quality of life. There is no evidence of superiority of intrathecal drug delivery systems over oral opioids in global pain improvement and global treatment satisfaction. Comparative evidence of harms was not found. Cost-effectiveness evidence is of insufficient quality to assess the appropriateness of funding intrathecal drug delivery systems. Evidence comparing intrathecal drug delivery systems with standard care was of very low quality. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not establish (or rule out) superiority or cost-effectiveness of intrathecal drug delivery systems for managing chronic refractory nonmalignant pain. The budget impact of funding intrathecal drug delivery systems would be between $1.5 and $5.0 million per year.
BACKGROUND: Intrathecal drug delivery systems can be used to manage refractory or persistent chronic nonmalignant (noncancer) pain. We investigated the benefits, harms, cost-effectiveness, and budget impact of these systems compared with current standards of care for adult patients with chronic pain owing to nonmalignant conditions. METHODS: We searched Ovid MEDLINE, Ovid Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the National Health Service's Economic Evaluation Database and Tufts Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry from January 1994 to April 2014 for evidence of effectiveness, harms, and cost-effectiveness. We used existing systematic reviews that had employed reliable search and screen methods and also searched for studies published after the search date reported in the latest systematic review to identify studies. Two reviewers screened records and assessed study validity. RESULTS: We found comparative evidence of effectiveness and harms in one cohort study at high risk of bias (≥ 3-year follow-up, N = 130). Four economic evaluations of low to very low quality were also included. Compared with oral opioid analgesia alone or a program of analgesia plus rehabilitation, intrathecal drug delivery systems significantly reduced pain (27% additional improvement) and morphine consumption. Despite these reductions, intrathecal drug delivery systems were not superior in patient-reported well-being or quality of life. There is no evidence of superiority of intrathecal drug delivery systems over oral opioids in global pain improvement and global treatment satisfaction. Comparative evidence of harms was not found. Cost-effectiveness evidence is of insufficient quality to assess the appropriateness of funding intrathecal drug delivery systems. Evidence comparing intrathecal drug delivery systems with standard care was of very low quality. CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence does not establish (or rule out) superiority or cost-effectiveness of intrathecal drug delivery systems for managing chronic refractory nonmalignant pain. The budget impact of funding intrathecal drug delivery systems would be between $1.5 and $5.0 million per year.
Authors: Z Philips; L Ginnelly; M Sculpher; K Claxton; S Golder; R Riemsma; N Woolacoot; J Glanville Journal: Health Technol Assess Date: 2004-09 Impact factor: 4.014
Authors: Gordon H Guyatt; Andrew D Oxman; Holger J Schünemann; Peter Tugwell; Andre Knottnerus Journal: J Clin Epidemiol Date: 2010-12-24 Impact factor: 6.437
Authors: S J Hassenbusch; P K Pillay; M Magdinec; K Currie; J W Bay; E C Covington; M Z Tomaszewski Journal: J Neurosurg Date: 1990-09 Impact factor: 5.115
Authors: Timothy Deer; Elliot S Krames; Samuel J Hassenbusch; Allen Burton; David Caraway; Stuart Dupen; James Eisenach; Michael Erdek; Eric Grigsby; Phillip Kim; Robert Levy; Gladstone McDowell; Nagy Mekhail; Sunil Panchal; Joshua Prager; Richard Rauck; Michael Saulino; Todd Sitzman; Peter Staats; Michael Stanton-Hicks; Lisa Stearns; K Dean Willis; William Witt; Kenneth Follett; Marc Huntoon; Leong Liem; James Rathmell; Mark Wallace; Eric Buchser; Michael Cousins; Anne Ver Donck Journal: Neuromodulation Date: 2007-10